I liken you to the deaf people who consider deafening their children and who definitely refuse to repair or aid the children's hearing when that is possible because they like their deaf life. They also feel they should be allowed to decide what they do with their children. You are just as wrong as they are

Just like you dismiss the people who are circumcised and hate it (and told you so) you choose to dismiss the people who would rather lose hearing over foreskin. The fact that such people exist at all (and I admit that I am not necessarily one of them) is important enough to prove my point and not yours. You have a confirmation bias and you are borderline dishonest.

The fact that damaging hearing may be slightly worse than damaging your sexual pleasure does not prove me wrong. It proves that cutting the foreskin is even MORE abusive and wrong to some people. I never stated that it's more abusive to cut the penis than deafening.

I was not trying to make the point that circumcision should be replaced with ear drum piercing. You tried to do so in your misleading poll (which still did not grant you unanimity and I find that very interesting).

I made my point. You're a penis-deaf guy who wants to perpetuate his defect because your brain managed to somehow turn a horrible situation into a positive experience. Just like the deaf people do.

Congratulations. You just reached a new level of low. You're slowly allowing your penis to do the thinking and you just do the talking and, just like an old-fashioned christian, you're desperately looking for some science, no matter how flawed, to prove what you already believe.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

(04-01-2012 02:36 PM)germanyt Wrote: Well I posted a poll to get an idea of what people thought. Just to figure out if people felt similarly about losing foreskin or losing hearing. It's not a scientific poll but it's pretty clear.

OK, but that is so not the point.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(04-01-2012 04:07 PM)Malleus Wrote: I liken you to the deaf people who consider deafening their children and who definitely refuse to repair or aid the children's hearing when that is possible because they like their deaf life. They also feel they should be allowed to decide what they do with their children. You are just as wrong as they are

Just like you dismiss the people who are circumcised and hate it (and told you so) you choose to dismiss the people who would rather lose hearing over foreskin. The fact that such people exist at all (and I admit that I am not necessarily one of them) is important enough to prove my point and not yours. You have a confirmation bias and you are borderline dishonest.

The fact that damaging hearing may be slightly worse than damaging your sexual pleasure does not prove me wrong. It proves that cutting the foreskin is even MORE abusive and wrong to some people. I never stated that it's more abusive to cut the penis than deafening.

I was not trying to make the point that circumcision should be replaced with ear drum piercing. You tried to do so in your misleading poll (which still did not grant you unanimity and I find that very interesting).

I made my point. You're a penis-deaf guy who wants to perpetuate his defect because your brain managed to somehow turn a horrible situation into a positive experience. Just like the deaf people do.

Congratulations. You just reached a new level of low. You're slowly allowing your penis to do the thinking and you just do the talking and, just like an old-fashioned christian, you're desperately looking for some science, no matter how flawed, to prove what you already believe.

But I'm not like those deaf people. Since most people clearly view loss of hearing worse than loss of foreskin it's not the same thing.

And my poll isn't misleading. It asks the question, if you had to lose either your foreskin or your hearing which would you lose? 90% would rather lose their foreskin than their hearing. How is that misleading?

I'm not perpetuating anything. You make it seem like I run around with a mini guillotine and a sign that says "free circumcisions". All I'm talking about is leaving the decision up to the parents. Since you disagree with that you are trying to make me out to be a monster by comparing me to women stoners and the deaf people you referenced. What I've spent far too much time on is showing you that I'm not at all like those people and most people would agree. I'm not like the deaf people because clearly foreskin isn't as serious as hearing. I'm not like Iranians because obviously foreskin removal isn't anywhere near the realm of stoning infidels.

(04-01-2012 02:48 PM)Malleus Wrote: You still have 6 (six) people who actually voted "foreskin". I did not vote because my mind is not made on this. You just proved that it's open for debate and at least 6 people would rather lose hearing. To me this is between music and orgasms. I can probably hear some kind of music with hearing aids just like I will get some kind of orgasm without the foreskin. However, in both cases it will NOT be the same. Definitely.

Wanted to add more to this. I can tell you that there is nothing upsetting about having and orgasm with a circumcised penis. If I were deaf now and had to option of having my foreskin back or having my hearing back I would def take the hearing. And I bet if I asked it that way there wouldn't be 6 foreskins.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

Deaf people: were born deaf, have no idea how useful hearing actually is, have no idea what their healthy children will lose if they destroy their hearing, think that deafness is a cultural thing, they are happy and proud about being deaf, they consider their healthy children "outsiders" and cast-aways and fight for their right to decide that their children should be deaf.

You: were circumcised soon after birth, have no idea about the advantages of a complete penis, you have no idea what you will be destroying when you circumcise your child, you think that it's a cultural thing, you are happy and proud about being circumcised, you consider having your babies circumcised, you fear that their disgusting complete penises will make them ridiculous in your society (not to mention in your own eyes) and you fight for your right to decide that your children should have a damaged penis too.

How are you different? You (arguably) cause less damage, but damage nevertheless and you're just as irrational about it as the deaf people. It has been explained to you that it's not just "a piece of skin". It evolved there for a reason and it does have functionality. I and most people who actually have a choice would never destroy it, just like you would never destroy eardrums. We understand its importance. You don't. We don't want to give up its functions, you don't even understand that they exist.

That's why you should not have that right because you go with your gut feelings, disregard all reason and make an uninformed decision for your non-consenting child. Just like the deaf people.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

(04-01-2012 04:46 PM)Malleus Wrote: You: were circumcised soon after birth, have no idea about the advantages of a complete penis, you have no idea what you will be destroying when you circumcise your child, you think that it's a cultural thing, you are happy and proud about being circumcised, you consider having your babies circumcised, you fear that their disgusting complete penises will make them ridiculous in your society (not to mention in your own eyes) and you fight for your right to decide that your children should have a damaged penis too.

How are you different? You (arguably) cause less damage, but damage nevertheless and you're just as irrational about it as the deaf people. It has been explained to you that it's not just "a piece of skin". It evolved there for a reason and it does have functionality. I and most people who actually have a choice would never destroy it, just like you would never destroy eardrums. We understand its importance. You don't. We don't want to give up its functions, you don't even understand that they exist.

I'm sitting here a little irritated and a little stumped. I think you might have convinced me. I'm still not sold on banning it but this is the most convincing arguement I've seen from you so far. I don't like the idea of controlling what decisions parents make or don't make for their kids. Especially when the issue is (arguably) less serious than say, deafening someone. But your points are noted and I may decide to not circumcise my son, if and when I have one.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

germanyt, im glad you've decided to reconsider your opinion on this issue, and it always helps to reasearch things like these even more.
and weigh the pros and cons, fuctionality, social, ethical and lifestyle implications it may have, to make an informed critical decision or form an opinion.

Thumbs up to you my friend

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus